Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Let's see -- taxpayers have already spent $52,000 on medical experts for this case (which is about the cost of the surgery), PLUS the cost of litigation. Now, just from a balance sheet perspective which would cost less? Also, a study in California showed that the cost of providing mental health services to someone who didn't have gender reassignment was prohibitive.

Aside from that, remove the "murderer" aspect of the situation, the question is whether or not in normal circumstances one believes that gender reassignment is cosmetic or not -- is that what you're arguing? Or additionally are you arguing that prisoners are not due medical care? (which means 3 decades of a Supreme Court ruling you would find bogus) What are the implications of that one in terms of... oh, say being HIV+ and being in the prison system?

Basically in this case you're left with knee-jerk emotional responses by people: "prisoner = icky" and "transgender = icky" which really isn't very different from people who think cocksuckers with AIDS are icky, amirite?

I'm absolutely for it . Gender reassignment surgery can be a life saving surgery for some people . I also think that the gay and lesbian community needs to step it up when it comes to supporting the Trans community .

To use an overused phrase -- you are heading down an awfully slippery slope there Ted.Miss P. makes an excellent point when substituting this situation with HIV treatment. Many people would feel, "why should I pay for that -- it's their own damned fault". Sex reassignment surgery is not an elective treatment, from a mental health POV. If someone's doctors think this is the proper treatment for someone -- then we have to cover it. They are in prison, so they can't get employer based coverage, can they??

This situation is another example of the inequity of US healthcare. Many Americans do not believe everyone deserves healthcare, so it is really galling when a murderer gets free expensive medical treatment but people who are law abiding, working citizens cannot afford medical care. My solution is that the government should assure all it's citizens have proper healthcare therefore avoiding these moral conundrums of who deserves to suffer and who deserves to be well. Ironically the Americans who seem most opposed to this idea identify as Christian.

This situation is another example of the inequity of US healthcare. Many Americans do not believe everyone deserves healthcare, so it is really galling when a murderer gets free expensive medical treatment but people who are law abiding, working citizens cannot afford medical care. My solution is that the government should assure all it's citizens have proper healthcare therefore avoiding these moral conundrums of who deserves to suffer and who deserves to be well. Ironically the Americans who seem most opposed to this idea identify as Christian.

It does seem rather barbaric that people actually debate who should and who should not receive healthcare.

jg1962 is also right. The gay community needs to do a better job at standing up for the rights of the trans community. Lest we forget it was drag queens who had the courage to fight back at Stonewall.

If I remember the original article correctly this person is serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole. The argument was that the gender issue was causing great mental anguish and quality of life issues for the person according to his/her attorney.

This person committed cold blooded murder of his wife. He was sentenced to life in prison. His mental anguish from gender identification in my opinion is just another part of his sentence and should not be covered by the tax payers.

If the tax payers are forced to foot the bill as the judge ruled, which by the way is being appealed, it opens a whole new can of worms. The prison argued that control of a prisoner and the administering of the punishment rest solely in the prisons system and that the person in question did not have the same rights as everyone else. They further argued that it placed an undue burden upon the tax payers and upon the prison system to administer the sentence imposed by the court.

His mental anguish from gender identification in my opinion is just another part of his sentence and should not be covered by the tax payers.

This sounds a little like an endorsement for torture in my opinion .

There has also been a ruling by the courts that prisons should provide air conditioning because some facility's have conditions where the heat reaches 104 degres . I think people need to be careful and consider what is humane and inhumane treatment after a person has been incarcerated , how they are treated is a comment on society . The crime they committed to get there is a separate issue at that point in the process .

Speaking of "slippery slopes," I can see the lawsuits now. A female prisoner never really developed breasts, and has what looks like a male chest. She believes breasts are key to what makes a woman a woman. She is depressed and wants breast enlargement surgery. Do tax payers foot the bill? Or, a male prisoner developed what looks like female breasts. He is depressed and feels he does not feel like a man with the enlarged breasts. Do tax payers foot the bill for a breast reduction?

And, this will happen. Other prisoners will claim they don't feel whole, so they are entitled to a surgery as well. I fully support lifesaving meds and treatment. HIV meds obviously fall under that. You will not die without the reassignment surgery. I don't think the justice system can make everyone feel whole. From what I read, they have a hard enough time getting lifesaving drugs (such as HIV meds) to the prisoners. I do believe a prisoner should continue to get hormone therapy, if they were already on it. To take them off would be cruel. I think non-emergency surgeries are going too far. The prison would also have to pay for all the follow-up treatment, and treatment if there were complications. This would open them up to more lawsuits, if the patient got an infection.

I think Medicare and Medicaid SHOULD pay for it. If I'm not mistaken, gender identity disorder has become recognized as a mental health condition. If sex reassignment is the solution, then it should be available.

Whether it should be available to an incarcerated person is the issue I have trouble with. It seems (to me) that the person gave up some of his/her rights when he/she committed a violent crime. Not sure whether this is one of those rights or not.

Speaking of "slippery slopes," I can see the lawsuits now. A female prisoner never really developed breasts, and has what looks like a male chest. She believes breasts are key to what makes a woman a woman. She is depressed and wants breast enlargement surgery. Do tax payers foot the bill? Or, a male prisoner developed what looks like female breasts. He is depressed and feels he does not feel like a man with the enlarged breasts. Do tax payers foot the bill for a breast reduction?

And, this will happen. Other prisoners will claim they don't feel whole, so they are entitled to a surgery as well. I fully support lifesaving meds and treatment. HIV meds obviously fall under that. You will not die without the reassignment surgery. I don't think the justice system can make everyone feel whole. From what I read, they have a hard enough time getting lifesaving drugs (such as HIV meds) to the prisoners. I do believe a prisoner should continue to get hormone therapy, if they were already on it. To take them off would be cruel. I think non-emergency surgeries are going too far. The prison would also have to pay for all the follow-up treatment, and treatment if there were complications. This would open them up to more lawsuits, if the patient got an infection.

Ted, There is a huge difference between what a person/prisoner "feels" they need and what a doctor thinks they need. I think the real problem here is that you don't really get what gender identity disorder really is about. A mental health disease is just as worthy of treatment as a physical one. Is it your take that we should just let this person's meal health deteriorate to the point that they commit suicide? Now THAT would save taxpayers some money!Bottom line - doctors should decide what is and is not needed, not taxpayers. Plus, there are lots of things that my tax dollars pay for that I do not like, I don't get to say " do not use my money for that.". Politicians do, of course - you want them to decide what should be covered?

In a better(sane) world we wouldn't even discuss this question, healthcare would be free and available for all, be it a prisoner or not. But in this god forgotten world the problem is grounded in the inequalities of wealth and how it is distributed between rich and poor.

Now, that being said and back to the original question, if tax payers should pay for this kind of procedure?

Im leaning towards no because of it not being a physical health issue. I understand the struggles and the mental hardship this inmate might go through but with the strain on the economy money would be better spent on someone else. I don't however see the difference if the patient would be in prison or not, that's irrelevant in my opinion.

This is all very hypothetical and it doesn't necessarily mean the money aimed to be spent on a surgery likes this benefits someone else in need. But IF that were a reality then I would opt no for procedures like this and let someone with lets say a life threatening condition jump the que. (No, I dont see sex change as immediately life saving)

Best way to go would of course be to raise taxes for corporate earnings, moving money overseas, high income earners etc. But since no one in power wants to give up anything for free I don't see that happening anytime soon, so we will probably continue to discuss problems like this in the foreseeable future.

If someone is repeatedly attempting to castrate themselves (as this person did) in addition to attempting to commit suicide, then I'm not sure how you can honestly state that this hasn't crossed over from purely a mental health issue to one of a physical impact -- as well as cost.

On another note, I'm happy that some of you are not in positions of authority when it comes to either medical care or making un-biased judicial decisions.

If someone is repeatedly attempting to castrate themselves (as this person did) in addition to attempting to commit suicide, then I'm not sure how you can honestly state that this hasn't crossed over from purely a mental health issue to one of a physical impact -- as well as cost.

On another note, I'm happy that some of you are not in positions of authority when it comes to either medical care or making un-biased judicial decisions.

If someone is trying to castrate themselves and/or trying to commit suicide I dont believe surgery is the way to go. This person needs to see a psychologist and get into therapy first hand to go to the bottom of his/hers issues. (Now dont read this as some shrink will force this person into living as a man. )

Hypothetically:If you had one surgery..... Would you give average Joe a shot at a triple bypass or sex change to an inmate?

If someone is trying to castrate themselves and/or trying to commit suicide I dont believe surgery is the way to go. This person needs to see a psychologist and get into therapy first hand to go to the bottom of his/hers issues. (Now dont read this as some shrink will force this person into living as a man. )

Hypothetically:If you had one surgery..... Would you give average Joe a shot at a triple bypass or sex change to an inmate?

The person in question has already been that route -- for 20 years IIRC. Seriously, do you know anything about this subject?

If someone is trying to castrate themselves and/or trying to commit suicide I dont believe surgery is the way to go. This person needs to see a psychologist and get into therapy first hand to go to the bottom of his/hers issues. (Now dont read this as some shrink will force this person into living as a man. )

Hypothetically:If you had one surgery..... Would you give average Joe a shot at a triple bypass or sex change to an inmate?

I don't think you get it at all -- if you do, you aren't explaining yourself well.This person has been in therapy and it seems that the doctors agree that the proper treatment to STOP all this destructive behavior is to have the sex reassignment surgery. You don't seem to understand (or perhaps just don't agree) that this condition is an actual thing -- not a whim, not, truly, elective at all. Is it as urgently immediate as someone with a blown aneurysm, probably not -- but fortunately for us -- your silly hypothetical isn't reality. There ISN'T ONLY one surgery available -- it is simply a red herring, worthy of the far-right and their war on women's health.I mean really -- if you simply don't agree that sexual identity disorder is a real medical issue, just say so -- don't try to justify it with nonesensical hypotheticals.Mike

I can see how you would want to give the inmate what they want/need, but is it really fair for the taxpayer to fund an expensive surgery most people deem elective. Aside from the mental health issues inherent in this would not having this surgery kill this person? The answer is no rendering it not medically necessitated. There's absolutely no guarantee that having the surgery would stop the suicide attempts. It is not the solution to this problem in my opinion.

(Oh, what a stark contrast to Miss P's opinion. There's a big shock for everyone )

It seems the argument you are constructing is that the inmate is attempting to take his own life, and to stop this you would grant him the surgery he needs. So if a female inmate were to want larger breasts and she attempted to commit suicide with that as the motive then the state pays for breast enlargement? Not a slippery slope/informal fallacy, but pretty much the same situation. It would just have to be medically backed.

Also your cost analysis is a little off, yes the court costs were about the rough cost of ONE surgery, but if there were more than one suddenly the costs begin to a bit more extreme. However, I doubt there are tons of inmates rushing to get gender reassignment surgery.

I can see how you would want to give the inmate what they want/need, but is it really fair for the taxpayer to fund an expensive surgery most people deem elective.

Guess what Lil' Buckaroo -- the unwashed masses don't decide these issues. Medical professionals do, and the judicial system uses them as experts to decide things in accordance with the law. Welcome to reality.

And apparently said medical professionals feel that the subject in question has fulfilled the requirements for a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder per the DSM-IV.

In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions' of the other sex. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his penis or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a penis, or aversion toward rough-and- tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a penis, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing.

B. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g. request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If someone is diagnosed with depression, schitzophrenia, liver disease, kidney disease, cancer, or an ingrown hair and the treatment is surgery which we (taxpayers) cover then I fail to see how this is any different.

If you decide not to treat someone simply because "its too expensive" then I hope none yall ever get put in the pokey as HIV meds are quite costly and ai am sure the taxpayers would rather not pay for such an expense...especially since we all got in some deviant manner.

Speak for yourself. I got it the way most people got it - through unprotected intercourse. It's not deviant, it's one of the most natural activities in which people engage, one that pretty much every single adult on the planet has done at some time in their life. And that includes anal. If you think anal is deviant, then I feel sorry for you.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

- How much money is at the disposal of the State for medical procedures?

- What other medical procedures are funded by the tax payerís dollars?

If there are equally costly procedures/treatments for equally serious conditions (the Ďseriousness of conditioní to be defined by medical professionals only) that have been allocated State funds (or are presently), then there is no reasonable basis to deny this person the same right. And since it appears that these criteria have already been met in this case, there really is nothing left to say. It really is that simple in my head.

If it is a finance consideration then stick to that line instead of muddying the waters by throwing in bigoted arguments (which are just that, no matter how they are veiled).

No non-transgendered person, especially those with no personal knowledge, or those lacking vicarious experience of Gender Identity Disorders, have any idea of what it is like being in that position, and thus they really should have no right to pass judgments that could so severely impact the otherís life, that too in a palpably negative way. But we donít live in an ideal world.

As an aside, I belong to a developing country where large numbers still donít get 3 proper meals a day, where many children die of malnutrition and where State funds and resources in the health sector, are not only stretched but direly lacking. And therefore, if something like this was proposed here (not that I could ever imagine such a thing), as much as I would sympathise, I could not bring myself in agreement with such a prioritization of funds, for it would be injudicious to the point of being criminal. But hell, if you live in a rich country or State then, different rules apply.

Attempting to equate breast enlargement surgery to gender reassignment surgery is like trying to compare apples to .... horses. Not in any way, shape or form the same thing.

I am obviously not a woman, but I've heard numerous women, who've had their breasts removed after cancer, say their breasts were key to what made them a woman. I first used the analogy. Are we prepared to pay for breast enlargement surgeries or breast restoration surgeries for prisoners serving life? Surgeries that are not life saving. Many insurance companies say gender reassignment surgery is elective. Yes, they say many things are elective. I am just saying law abiding citizens have to save their money for the surgery.

You may think you cannot equate the two and I may think that. But, what we think won't matter. Another prisoner just needs a doctor to say whatever condition causes mental anguish and they would just point to this case and say their anguish is just as valid.

That's basically what this thread boils down to, but the "anti" contingent seems to prefer to dance around saying it.

And, then it would follow, if that's what they believe then they should also advocate taking the "T" out of LGBT.

Guess what Lil' Buckaroo -- the unwashed masses don't decide these issues. Medical professionals do, and the judicial system uses them as experts to decide things in accordance with the law. Welcome to reality.

C'mon girl, you're arguing with people that believe the only good gay is a white gay.

I am obviously not a woman, but I've heard numerous women, who've had their breasts removed after cancer, say their breasts were key to what made them a woman. I first used the analogy. Are we prepared to pay for breast enlargement surgeries or breast restoration surgeries for prisoners serving life? Surgeries that are not life saving. Many insurance companies say gender reassignment surgery is elective. Yes, they say many things are elective. I am just saying law abiding citizens have to save their money for the surgery.

You may think you cannot equate the two and I may think that. But, what we think won't matter. Another prisoner just needs a doctor to say whatever condition causes mental anguish and they would just point to this case and say their anguish is just as valid.

If you think that breast enlargement and breast restoration are equivalent, then you really are not interested in understanding anything here -- only in trying to reassert your postion. My mother lost a breast to cancer and I can tell you -- the whole time that she fought with her insurance company to cover the reconstruction surgery was a nightmare. She was a completely different person, mentally, during this time - I am not exaggerating when I say that we were all worried for her well being. Once she had her breast back, we got my mother back. This was NOT elective.Again -- if you want to say that this person doesn't deserve the surgery because you don't think they have a true medical condition -- say so. These absurd comparisons aren't working.

Taxpayers pay for a whole host of "non-life saving" medical things, btw.......... Eyeglasses, eye exams, ear exams, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, teeth cleanings, nail fungus treatment, bunion surgery -- shall I go on? Where is your outrage on these expenditures?? It always pisses me off when gay folks are so willing to throw the transgendered under the bus. You may be trying to find a way to make it look differently, but unless you are outraged on the procedures I just mentioned being done at taxpayer expense (in prison, on Medicaid, on Medicare, on VA benefits) then your position is based, at best, on a lack of understanding, or, at worst, on bigotry.

Attempting to equate breast enlargement surgery to gender reassignment surgery is like trying to compare apples to .... horses. Not in any way, shape or form the same thing.

Why? The previous argument made was that the inmate's condition was causing depression. Depression caused suicide and self castration attempts. If one inmate was doing it because they wanted gender reassignment and the other was doing it in an attempt to get breast enlargement the cause and effect are the same.

I don't stand in the way of anyone who wants to have gender reassignment surgery, but if the state of louisiana were doing that for prisoners I would be very unhappy that my tax dollars were going toward it.

Why? The previous argument made was that the inmate's condition was causing depression. Depression caused suicide and self castration attempts. If one inmate was doing it because they wanted gender reassignment and the other was doing it in an attempt to get breast enlargement the cause and effect are the same.

You are quite right. These features and requirements listed below are just as applicable to breast enlargement.

And apparently said medical professionals feel that the subject in question has fulfilled the requirements for a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder per the DSM-IV.

In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions' of the other sex. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his penis or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a penis, or aversion toward rough-and- tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a penis, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing.

B. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g. request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

There's something very wrong with cocksuckers who bitch, scream and moan about society treating them so badly when they had no choice in being a cocksucker, but then turn around and label the transgendered as not being born that way and surgery to correct this as elective and cosmetic in nature.

I think that's called hypocrisy, but I'm just not sure. Maybe it's just being an asswipe.

This is just a very sad thread. I guess there will always be some folks who see those different from themselves as less deserving and, let's be blunt, less human than they are. They will, of course, look for arguments to justify treating other differently than themselves, but it is really just the difference that rules their minds. Bigotry shall never die.

There's something very wrong with cocksuckers who bitch, scream and moan about society treating them so badly when they had no choice in being a cocksucker, but then turn around and label the transgendered as not being born that way and surgery to correct this as elective and cosmetic in nature.

I think that's called hypocrisy, but I'm just not sure. Maybe it's just being an asswipe.

How does this post get turned from do you think the taxpayers should pay for a sex reassignment, to you might just be an asswipe if you don't think taxpayers should pay for the reassignment to a con? Let's ask the victims family what they think.

How does this post get turned from do you think the taxpayers should pay for a sex reassignment, to you might just be an asswipe if you don't think taxpayers should pay for the reassignment to a con? Let's ask the victims family what they think.

Hey, guess what Rocket Scientist -- victims' families don't get to decide how the US Constitution applies to prisoner treatment. Kind of like how they don't sit in judgement during a court case.

This is just a very sad thread. I guess there will always be some folks who see those different from themselves as less deserving and, let's be blunt, less human than they are. They will, of course, look for arguments to justify treating other differently than themselves, but it is really just the difference that rules their minds. Bigotry shall never die.

There's something very wrong with cocksuckers who bitch, scream and moan about society treating them so badly when they had no choice in being a cocksucker, but then turn around and label the transgendered as not being born that way and surgery to correct this as elective and cosmetic in nature.

I think that's called hypocrisy, but I'm just not sure. Maybe it's just being an asswipe.

I love it when somone is inside my head, it saves me from struggling to find ways of putting pen to paper, so to speak, especially when I get angry with those who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Part of the reason why the debate on health care reform is so frustrating for me is because people form opinions without understanding the issues involved , and this thread is another example of this .

This is just a very sad thread. I guess there will always be some folks who see those different from themselves as less deserving and, let's be blunt, less human than they are. They will, of course, look for arguments to justify treating other differently than themselves, but it is really just the difference that rules their minds. Bigotry shall never die.

Mike

Right on, Mike. Portions of this thread have started to reek of the ol' trolls and disability queens need not apply mentality

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

For me, it is. As long as people outside prison don't have access to the surgery, it's foolish to even discuss for people in prison.

Prisoner's get three square meals a day -- is that required outside of prison? Clearly, no -- hence why your question is irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise, as previously pointed out, HIV care and medications are required to be provided for prisoners. Is that the case outside of prison?

Prisoner's get three square meals a day -- is that required outside of prison? Clearly, no -- hence why your question is irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise, as previously pointed out, HIV care and medications are required to be provided for prisoners. Is that the case outside of prison?

And that's one the twisted things of your health care system. It's humorous when you defend the rights of the trans people on prison, but forget those outside of it.

It's humorous when you defend the rights of the trans people on prison, but forget those outside of it.

Did you fail 5th grade remedial debate class or something? Where have I anywhere in this thread said something that would give you the impression that I hold that opinion? Or were you directing that comment at the judge? A judge would not offer an opinion on that either.

Did you fail 5th grade remedial debate class or something? Where have I anywhere in this thread said something that would give you the impression that I hold that opinion? Or were you directing that comment at the judge? A judge would not offer an opinion on that either.

You mad or something? it's so hard to understand that in my opinion, while people out of prison don't have easy access to these surgeries, people on prison should not? (yeah, I'm reducing it to the term: "prisoner=Icky").

A transgender woman serving a life sentence without parole for killing her wife in 1990. Taxpayers should pay for her surgery, when she took the life of someone else?

Well, then let's just kill all the convicts. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for their food, lodging, etc. It should not matter why she is in prison. This is a MEDICAL QUESTION - at present, the state pays all her medical bills -- that means ALL her medical bills. I'm good with excluding elective care -- this has been deemed as necessary care by her doctors.Who's paying for YOUR medical care - BTW?? I'm sure there are some taxpayers who would object.

Although -- I do appreciate the fact that you aren't trying to twist logic to support your postion. You are stating it plainly, you see convicts as less than human and not deserving of human rights.